Talk:Rhode Island
I often find myself wondering how viable an independent RI would have been, had they continued to reject the Constitutional government. I don't see them changing US history much. They've produced no Presidents, no great statesmen really come to mind (the only RI politician I can think of offhand is Lincoln Chaffee), they contributed to all our wars but no real great heroes, and not exactly massive amounts of men or materiel, and their location makes it easy for US trade routes to bypass them. A naval installation would be lost, but there's no shortage of alternate sites. :True. TR 16:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Actually I feel a little mean for having pointed all that out. But true it is. Turtle Fan 17:14, January 26, 2010 (UTC) The likeliest element of US history to be affected would be imperialism. With the southern states on an expansionist kick in the antebellum, would northerners be able to resist the appeal of two more northern Senate seats? And later on, how would all the great expansionists of the turn of the twentieth century react to such a nearby state that would be such a natural fit for inclusion in the US? :No, it would be an obvious direction to go. RI is small, it would be essentially surrounded, anyway. It might be costly, depending on when it happened and how determined RI was to be independent. TR 16:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I also wonder if starting out with a 6:6 northern/southern split would set in motion an even stronger commitment to maintaining a balance of power between north and south, which would result in leaving all possible targets alone. I doubt it. It would be hard to have an "even stronger" commitment, for one; keeping an equal number of free and slave states was a dominant principle throughout the early nineteenth century, until things got to the point where we realized it was asking for the hampering of growth to a ridiculous degree. Turtle Fan 17:14, January 26, 2010 (UTC) If left alone, wouldn't Cubans and Filipinos and all the rest be able to declare racism, in that the US left white countries alone when it could absorb them while going out of its way to absorb nonwhite countries? Would anyone give a shit if they did? Would whiteness necessarily protect Rhode Island? (Four of the five great European powers had European colonies, after all.) :I see no reason why race protect them. If the US did annex "non-white" populations, then you'd likely see people screaming that the US needed to annex more whites to even things out. TR 16:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I probably got the idea from The Imperial Cruise. The new book, came out around Thanksgiving, by the guy who did Flags of Our Fathers. He intended to expose America's imperialist past (pointed out some interesting, often overlooked facts, as well as several which I know to be false), draw connections to the twentieth century Asian wars (at this he failed utterly, in fact he hardly tried) and wanted to give everything a racial explanation (which, while not entirely invalid, depended on huge amounts of extrapolation on his part). Oh, and he really, really laid into your namesake. Turtle Fan 17:14, January 26, 2010 (UTC) If they survived into the twentieth century, I wonder how they'd behave in the systemic conflicts of that century. Certainly Washington would have absolutely no tolerance for Providence's alignment with the Central Powers, the Axis, or the Soviet Bloc; but if Providence were to flirt with risking Washington's ire, that could produce an interesting historical divergence. Otherwise they might be allowed to remain neutral in the conflicts; there's lots of precedent for large countries being content to leave small, strategically not-too-important neighbors alone. Turtle Fan 09:00, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :Neutrality makes the most sense if RI is independent. There is absolutely no reason for an independent RI to antagonize the US, unless they sincerely believe that the US is going to be brought to heel by the CP, Axis, or USSR. However, the consequences of such allegiance would far outweigh neutrality if they proved wrong. ::True--and even if the US were creamed by its strategic enemies, it would almost certainly still have time to punish Rhode Island before all was lost. ::There's also the possibility of RI coming in on the US's side. In WWII in particular, several small countries in Washington's orbit--Nicaragua was a prime example--declared war on Germany and Japan as soon as they heard about Pearl Harbor, then stuck out their hands to ask for Lend-Lease money. Of course, they knew that given their size and location they wouldn't be asked actually to do anything. RI being where it is, they'd be asked for, at minimum, support for naval operations, which would make them a target during the Battle of the Atlantic. ::Depending on anti-US sentiment in RI, they might find ways of being passively aggressive while maintaining neutrality, like all those Dubliners who left the lights on all night long in 1940 to help the Luftwaffe triangulate blacked-out London. Not sure how far RI could push it--if they were, say, to let German submarines hide out in their territorial waters, and not allow Allied ships in to roust them out, that would surely lead to war. Turtle Fan 17:14, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :Now, if RI were occupied in the past by the US, then a restive population might be willing to do a deal. TR 16:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC) ::And a European enemy whose subs and freighters ranged across the Atlantic would have a pretty easy time supporting them, too. Turtle Fan 17:14, January 26, 2010 (UTC) And I wonder what would happen if they were independent and had always been left alone by the time of the Civil War. They'd be Northerners by another name, would have no use for slavery, and most likely would have been a magnet for runaways throughout the Antebellum, unless they thought that the Southern lobby was strong enough and aggressive enough that they'd be seriously risking war. Still, lingering sore feelings over the other twelve states going off and writing a Constitution over Little Rhodey's protests might sway public opinion toward the secesh. If it did, all RI could do would be to root for the Rebs, and quietly at that; support them for real and RI would be crushed in short order. On the other hand RI could support the Union. But that's a very, very sticky situation, isn't it? If their support were overt, then a foreign power would be involved and it wouldn't be a civil war anymore. RI would either be recognizing the CS in order to go to war with it--which Washington would surely not tolerate--or would be sending in troops to help quell an internal dispute. But that's hardly a serious possibility--Small governments might invite large neighbors to do so out of desperation (Antonescu needing Hitler's help against the Iron Guard, for instance) and large governments might force their way in for their own imperial purposes but under the guise of lending a helping hand (that's how Japan annexed Okinawa, though I'm sure I could think of a better-known example if I felt like it) but how is a small government going to get a large government to ask? Unless maybe the large government has far more important business to attend to elsewhere, like in TL-191 when the US asked/goaded Quebec to mind the store in Canada and the Snake got Mexico to fight the black insurgents. Turtle Fan 17:27, January 26, 2010 (UTC) I think all this talk of an independent Rhode Island really improbable. Even if they didin't join the US in 1790, there would be no way they would survive long independent. It's the smallest state; they would have to rely on the neighboring states like MA of CT for trade and other things, so after maybe a few months or a year they would eveantually join it. What i never understand in the Disunited States, though, is how not only all the New England states remain independent but they go to war against antoher. New England is proabably the most well-defined region in the US, so they all have a nearly identical sense of heritage, so in a case like DSA, they would almost absolutely join forces to create a Federation of New England or something like that. Also, how could people with such a sense of common heritage and common history like New England fight at least 3 wars against one another? It's good storytelling, but still. What would be more likely woudl they would form a confederation or federation called New England. It's much more probable, at elast i think so. A Wikia Contributor 15.18, March 30, 2011 (EST) :Common heritage doesn't preclude warfare: Prussia and Austria fought; Russians and Ukrainians fought; warring city-states beyond belief before Italy unified. The Korean War was stomach-churningly brutal, and you'd better believe people on each side thought of the other as their compatriots, with Japan gone less than five years and the flowers still fresh on the graves of the freedom fighters. It can be especially likely in this scenario, actually: "A Federation of New England, huh? Good idea, I think I'll start one up." "Yes, it's a good idea, but only if I start it up." You can see where that would go. :And if you don't believe it could happen in New England, Google up the short-lived and little-known history of the Republic of Vermont. While Cornwallis was raising the white flag, Ethan Allan was in Quebec City conducting secret negotiations for a separate peace with the viceroy. Apparently, the Green Mountain Boys' flat-out changing sides was on the table. :As for RI remaining independent, it would be deep within the gravity well of the US's economic influence, but as long as it behaved itself it's possible it would be granted at least nominal independence, and history is filled with cases of such independence being the perfect salve for otherwise-wounded political pride. The key would be the US's willingness not to impose trade barriers; start slapping tariffs on Rhode Island goods and the tiny country would fall almost as surely, and likely at least as messily, as it would through military intervention. Turtle Fan 20:24, March 30, 2011 (UTC) Wonder why the Turtledove hate-on for Rhode Island. ML4E 20:51, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :Hmm. "Vile Rhode Island?" Obvious answer is that it's a small state and easy for people of a certain state to ignore or disdain. :I suppose if HT is an ardent Constitutionalist and Union man (and certain of his patterns suggest the latter, anyway), he might just resent RI for holding out like it did. TR 22:00, January 9, 2012 (UTC)